This is a question we’ve been getting a lot lately. The truth is we didn’t choose one over the other. We’re currently using both backscatter and millimeter wave technology, and we just announced that we purchased 302 additional imaging technology units. We are buying 202 millimeter wave units and 100 backscatter units.

In order to be included in the competitive process, strict detection standards must be met. Currently, only two companies have AIT machines that meet those standards. As companies develop new über cool technologies, they can be included in the competitive process.

Speaking of fantabulous über cool technologies, many have also asked why we’re not using Automated Target Recognition (ATR) software since the technology exists. ATR software is used with AIT and displays a generic stick figure-like image on the monitor attached to the AIT machine to show potential threats concealed on a passenger, and does not display the actual image of the passenger. It provides stronger privacy protections and eliminates the need to staff an extra officer in a private room. We’re very interested in this next generation software, but ATR in its current form does not meet TSA’s detection standards.

Software development is currently underway and will be followed by testing to ensure it meets our detection standards.

We’ve posted many times on AIT. You can read much more about it here on our blog, or at TSA.gov.

211 comments:

From the complaints that have been coming in, it seems to be common practice for TSA to send people through the machines without telling them what they do or offering them a choice. How does anyone think that this is OK?

The analysis we've done in a primary setting shows a significant increase in detection that could only otherwise be obtained by increasing manpower to conduct pat-down searches.

The benefit of this technology is that it provides enhanced detection capabilities and an alternative to the physical pat down at the security checkpoint.

Also does this screening take more or less time to complete than the previous way.

The scan itself takes a few seconds, but the complete scan is about 20 seconds.

And what are you doing to ensure passenger's belongings are safe guarded against theft from either fellow passengers and/or rogue TSOs?

Passengers can always request that their items remain in their view. Passengers can also request a pat-down and have all of their items placed in their view prior to the pat-down. We also have CCTV in place at most airports.

RB said... We’ve posted many times on AIT. You can read much more about it here on our blog, or at TSA.gov..............Everything but actual images in the size and resolution seen by the operators.

These images would allow a person to make an educated decision to accept WBI "Strip Serach" Screening or not.

What harm is there in being honest with the public?

Seems typical operations for TSA to mislead and be dishonest with the public.

April 30, 2010 3:06 PM------------------------

Once again two pictures of the actual MMW screening terminal and 1video of the terminal have been posted on this blog. In this video and two pictures you get to see the actual size of the screen along with its detail.

Bob said:Passengers can always request that their items remain in their view. Passengers can also request a pat-down and have all of their items placed in their view prior to the pat-down. We also have CCTV in place at most airports.

----

Yes, but if one requests a pat-down, they are given the most humiliating pat-down, encouraging them to choose WBI the next time they fly..

Bob, if you won't answer our other questions, please answer this:

Why won't you release the actual image that the TSO sees in the "private booth"?? Why are you trying to hide this info from the public??

Y'know what would be uber-cool? Some sort of devise that could just read our minds! And then it would also be uber-cool if there was some kind of chamber where the state security organs could just gas those of us with subversive ideas. Boy would that be uber-cool!

Just because a technology exists does not mean that you have to use it. Stop looking at my penis. Stop looking at naked pictures of my family.

Passengers can always request that their items remain in their view. Passengers can also request a pat-down and have all of their items placed in their view prior to the pat-down. We also have CCTV in place at most airports.---------------------

But Bob, TSOs continue to do whatever they want to do regarding the passenger and the passenger's belongings. Are TSOs being trained to do this or is this one of the things that varies airport to airport?

"We don´t use automated recognition because we don´t want to. We want people to see under your clothes. We want to use backscatter because then we can see even better. We can do whatever we want! We always have."

Blogger Bob said: We’re very interested in this next generation software, but ATR in its current form does not meet TSA’s detection standards.

In other words, there isn't a US-based vendor of the software or they haven't yet offered your management enough "incentive." We get it.

Anonymous asked:Where is the cost benefit analysis for the use of these machines?

to which Bob replied:

The analysis we've done in a primary setting shows a significant increase in detection that could only otherwise be obtained by increasing manpower to conduct pat-down searches.

The benefit of this technology is that it provides enhanced detection capabilities and an alternative to the physical pat down at the security checkpoint.

Sigh. Do you know what a "cost-benefit analysis" is, Bob? This isn't one. This is your summary of your view of the benefit. A cost-benefit analysis weighs up the cost (financial, time, public reaction, etc) against the benefit to see whether the benefit justifies the cost. We know that you've already decided that these are worth it, but we're asking to see your work in coming to that conclusion. "We think it's a good idea" is NOT a cost-benefit analysis.

Anonymous also asked:And what are you doing to ensure passenger's belongings are safe guarded against theft from either fellow passengers and/or rogue TSOs?

to which Bob replied:

Passengers can always request that their items remain in their view. Passengers can also request a pat-down and have all of their items placed in their view prior to the pat-down. We also have CCTV in place at most airports.

Why is it necessary for passengers to REQUEST this? Do you believe that some passengers want to keep their property secure but most don't? The TSA has created this situation where people are asked to stand in a booth without their bags or get patted down - it is YOUR RESPONSIBILITY to ensure that the passenger's property is secure during the process. It should not rely on the passenger knowing what they are allowed to ask for.

Similarly, there are many reports of passengers not being clearly informed that they can request a patdown. It is the RESPONSIBILITY of the screener to offer the option, not the responsibility of the passenger to know what their options are.

You say "most airports" have CCTV. How many is "most"? 51%? 75% How can I know whether MY airport is one that does or doesn't? Is the CCTV positioned to observe the theft of possessions while the passenger is being screened? What steps are required for the passenger to get that CCTV footage if someone takes their property? Wouldn't it be better to prevent the opportunity for theft than to try to track someone from CCTV footage long after the event?

Blogger Bob said:Passengers can always request that their items remain in their view. Passengers can also request a pat-down and have all of their items placed in their view prior to the pat-down. We also have CCTV in place at most airports.

Looks like the left hand does not know what right hand is doing in such places as San Diego, Las Vegas, Seattle, O'Hare, Honolulu, San Francisco, Denver, Dallas/Fort Worth, New York La Guardia, New York Kennedy, Norfolk, and St. Louis. But especially in Seattle (Hello, south gates screening!)

Blogger Bob wrote in response to my question: "Where is the cost benefit analysis for the use of these machines?"

"The analysis we've done in a primary setting shows a significant increase in detection that could only otherwise be obtained by increasing manpower to conduct pat-down searches.

The benefit of this technology is that it provides enhanced detection capabilities and an alternative to the physical pat down at the security checkpoint. "

All I see in those two paragraphs is the 'benefits' What about the costs? The expense of the machines, is 20 seconds for a scan more or less than transiting the metal detectors? You mention it increases detection rates, but how many items detected are either false positives or present no danger to the flying public?

Your answer is intellectually dishonest. It's unclear if these machines would have stopped the 9/11 terrorists -- or even some of them -- from boarding. But why worry about such details, right Anonymous?

They might make financial and security sense even if they aren't a panacea, but without a serious cost-benefit analysis the best we will be able to do is "well, they're probably an ok investment."

Curtis, this blog entry doesn't answer the question it presumes to answer. By your own admission, some airports are using bxr. By your own admission, when you say both are being purchased you are saying that some airports will get bxr instead of mmw.

So, for those bxr machines that you purchased, why is the TSA using unsafe bxr instead of safe mmw? As long as any airports are still getting bxr, the question is still valid.

"At a financial cost (depending on your sources) from 10 to 40 times pre-9/11 airport security, this agency has pilfered at least the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendment rights from all US travelers. It has imposed indirect costs on the frequent flyer ranging from $15 to $30 billion per year in squandered business opportunity.....

At an annual expense of $7 billion, the "system" (i.e., TSA)..."

Now YOU do the math.

Read John Mueller's The Quixotic Quest for Invulnerability: Assessing the Costs, Benefits, and Probabilities of Homeland Security to learn about how a cost-benefit analysis is done. It ain't just about the cost of the machines.

The point of terrorism is not to "destroy." It is to terrify. And for eight and a half years now, the dominant federal government response to terrorist threats and attacks has been to magnify their harm by increasing a mood of fear and intimidation. That is the real case against the ludicrous "orange threat level" announcements we hear every three minutes at the airport. It's not just that they're pointless, uninformative, and insulting to our collective intelligence; it's that their larger effect is to make people feel frightened rather than brave.

I won't go into the arguments about whether creation of an ever-threatened public mood is deliberate, or what interests it serves. I'll just say: it works against larger American interests (as argued here), and New York in these past two days has shown the alternative. That is nothing more than: being alert, but living your life and not skulking around terrified. I hate to say that when people act fearful, "the terrorists win," but it's true.

"As federal agents closed in, Faisal Shahzad was aboard Emirates Flight 202. He reserved a ticket on the way to John F. Kennedy International Airport, paid cash on arrival and walked through security without being stopped.".................So Bob, how's that BDO deal working out for ya?

the people on this blog are idiots... They want security, but they dont want AIT or pat downs... Yet when TSA misses something they immediately cry that not enough is being done...

The fact is with hardened cockpit doors guns and knives are no longer the threat... Metal detectors have limited usefulness. The new threat comes from explosives, which are not metal. And other than AIT the only way to detect it is with a full pat down of every passenger, which would be slow, and be more personal and invasive than the AIT- ask anyone with a pacemaker how much they enjoy going through that everytime they fly. For people like them, and those with metal knees and hips, the AIT is a huge time saver.

OVerall, id say that WBI is one of the few examples of TSA being proactive in closing a loophole in existing screening technology before something happens.

My only gripe is that they still havent closed the loophole of people on the no fly list getting airline tickets anyways. That responsibility needs to be taken away from the airlines. Computers need to be placed at the TDC posts, and tickets need to be checked there by TSA agents against the no-fly list, seeing as the airlines are not enforcing the list, as demonstrated by the times square guy being sold a ticket. Passengers can pass a fake ID and fake name to an airline employee with ease, or in the case of the time square guy, be sold a ticket anyway. If TSA was checking people against the list at TDC posts, then it wouldnt make a difference if they used fake ID, alias to spoof the airline because it would be much harder to spoof officers and BDO's than $8/hr airline reps. This could be done with minimum expense... netbook computers with simple database software could be purchased for a few hundred bucks a piece.

Thank you for finally letting this child ride on the plane. Now, how about clearing the names of all those other kids on the 'no fly list'? http://news.travel.aol.com/2010/04/30/are-these-kids-terrorists/?icid=main|main|dl4|link3|http%3A%2F%2Fnews.travel.aol.com%2F2010%2F04%2F30%2Fare-these-kids-terrorists%2F

OMG! What is wrong with people and this blog? I want to be safe but don't do anything that might hold me up, cuz I am not a terrorist. Using the word strip search machine only makes you sound dumb. And why does everyone want "actual size" photos...never satisfied. people are attacking America everyday, but until 9/11 happens again...people just know I will be doing everything in my power so it does not.

Had a interesting trip recently that begs for some questions to be answered. You care to explain why the TDC 1 striper at DFW C21 last Thursday morning at 6am CP was asking passengers to state the name on there ID. What is the purpose of this? This smacks at a 4th amendment violation via drag-netting outside of your scope of authorization. Leave the Behavior stuff to true professionals not the type you claim to have as theres a long list of failures that can be pointed at including the latest on EK202 that CBP is the one that made the catch not TSA.

Then not to mention it took way to long to get through the elite line (12:18 to get through the TDC, and 18:37 because the x-ray person was taking a way to long examine bags. if your not certain what it is second the bag dont back up the line even more because you cant do your job quickly and efficiently.

Then also since when did Levi 505 jeans become baggy clothing? If i put anything in my pockets they bulge so care to explain that one as im really interested. and dont say SSI as a CYA.

And the asked repeatedly and yet to get a answer. Why is that TSA employees never follow CDC/OSHA guidelines for Body Substance Isolation equipment and wear gloves for longer then there supposed to and cross contaminate every bag they touch without changing there gloves. That is the most disgusting things about the checkpoints next to the floors that dont appear to get cleaned all that often. (DFW, SJC, LAX, SFO, EWR, ORD, DCA are just a couple of examples)

Then you all need to outright fire CAS from SFO, there 5x ruder then your normal TSA employees.

Anonymous said: "if they used fake ID, alias to spoof the airline because it would be much harder to spoof officers and BDO's than $8/hr airline reps"

Are these "officers" you speak of different from the TSOs and TDCs that don't know what constitutes valid ID to go through a checkpoint ("NEXUS card? Whatever that is, it ain't valid! I know, I'm a TSO!")?

Are these "officers" you speak of different from the TSOs and TDCs that can't spot a fake badge, much less a fake a ID ("Oh, you're a Marshal deporting this woman? My, what a fancy plastic badge you have! Please Sir, go right through.")?

The average bartender at a moderately busy bar can detect fake IDs better than the average TSO/TDC.

DevotedFather said... OMG! What is wrong with people and this blog? I want to be safe but don't do anything that might hold me up, cuz I am not a terrorist. Using the word strip search machine only makes you sound dumb. And why does everyone want "actual size" photos...never satisfied. people are attacking America everyday, but until 9/11 happens again...people just know I will be doing everything in my power so it does not.

TSA wants everyone to go through the Strip Search Machines. I say show me what it is you are wanting of me first, then I will decide if the image is to graphic. TSA has been less than truthful about TSA.

Anon sez - "If you admit the images do show passengers penis and labia then why do they not appear on the sample images? Can the sample images provided even qualify as accurate samples?"

Which images are you looking at? The ones posted here:

http://www.tsa.gov/blog/2009/08/imaging-technolgy-bigger-picture.html

Should give you the basic idea of what imagery is generated by the AIT machines.

West TSA Blog Team

May 3, 2010 6:22 PM----------------------------------

In an earlier post on a separate blog you said:

There is some representation of the areas mentioned, but detail is a very vague question. You can see the images on this very blog on earlier posts and there are even some videos out there that can show some of the "detail" you can see with the AIT. More specifically, what level of detail are you asking about? The resolution does not go down to the hair follicle level, but there is an accurate representation of the body as it is.

WestTSA Blog Team

April 19, 2010 3:49 PM===================================

So you say there is some representation of nipples, penis, and labia yet the samples on the link you provided of the man and woman show no nipples on either, no labia, but some representation of a penis.

So since you admit screeners can see nipples and labia why can they not be seen on the samples from the link? That is why i want to know if the sample images provided can be considered accurate when they don't show the details of the body that you state can be seen?

"According to GAO, TSA inspectors spend 33% of their time inspecting, 8% on incidents, 5% investigating, 5% on “outreach”, and 49% of their time on “other.” Other?"

RB,

Up until recently, there has not been a system in place that allows TSA/DHS Inspectors to accurately report all of the activities that they perform on a regular basis. The systems that we use are essentially made to report Inspections and Investigations, and do not accurately report our time for training, travel, and investigative work not directly related to an inspection, (which is actually most of the other/unknown category).

TSA/DHS Inspectors do not have just one primary duty. This is a small sample of what a fully trained and capable Inspector has to offer.

TSI's also have ongoing training and qualification requirements as well as all the mentoring and training that we are responsible to give to our stakeholders and and their agents.

All of the duties and qualifications of the Inspector workforce is not reportable in one system at this time. As we evolve, TSA and their IT partners have come up with better, and more complex reporting systems that will more accurately reflect the time that an inspector spends performing their duties.

We are a very diverse workforce made up of mostly former law enforcement and military personnel with an emphasis on an investigative background that shows a proclivity to easily assess any security situation and, we have the lowest turnover rate in TSA and one of the best security clearances. (Just in case you were wondering)

You may not remember, but I have actually introduced myself to you in this forum before. I gave you a much smaller rundown of a TSI in TSA.

I respect you. I may not agree completely with everything that you say, or how you say it, but that doesn't mean that we can't work together to find a common ground.

OMG! What is wrong with people and this blog? I want to be safe but don't do anything that might hold me up, cuz I am not a terrorist. Using the word strip search machine only makes you sound dumb. And why does everyone want "actual size" photos...never satisfied. people are attacking America everyday, but until 9/11 happens again...people just know I will be doing everything in my power so it does not.

May 5, 2010 3:23 PM----------------------------------

If the full size full resolution images that the posters here want to see won't deter you from using the strip search scanners anyway, then why do you care why we want to see them?

I want see them so I can make an informed decision about this technology.

If another passenger is preventing you from using the scanners file a complaint.

until i am allowed to see my own image produced i will not submit to these scans.....period. pat-down, ETD, whatever else for me is much less invasive.

Anon sez - "Does the TSA have any current plans to allow passengers who opt for AIT to see their own scanned image?"

Not at this time. Based on the privacy regulations in place (and the fact that the more images out there for study, the better chance someone could learn how to circumvent the AIT), I would not look for this to be an option in the future.

West TSA Blog Team

May 3, 2010 6:28 PM-----------------------------------

Finally an answer (months later). but thanks anyway for answering.

If terrorists already know that hiding a bomb or weapon in a body cavity will circumvent the effectiveness of AIT then how does me not being allowed to see my own image pose a risk if ppl already know the way to get around it?

And if there are other layers in place to protect against someone trying to get something past AIT....then again, how does me seeing my own image cause a problem when the other layers in place would prevent the same threat?

people are attacking America everyday, but until 9/11 happens again...people just know I will be doing everything in my power so it does not.-------------------------------------1) No, people are not "attacking America everyday." 2) You do realize that there is a far, far greater chance that someone in your family will die in a bathtub related incident than in a terrorist attack, right? So here's my question to you: have you done "everything in your power" to prevent this? When you take a shower do you use devices to monitor your vital signs and signal for help in case of a mishap? Do you carefully monitor your family members' bathing? Is there a defibrillator in your bathroom in case someone in your family suffers cardiac arrest while bathing? Heck, I'll bet you don't even use a no-slip mat.

Thanks for your post, though. It really helps explain how we got to this absurd point in our history.

A TSA worker in Miami was arrested for aggravated battery after police say he attacked a colleague who'd made fun of his small genitalia after he walked through one of the new high-tech security scanners during a recent training session...

Sources say [the TSO] stepped into the machine during the training session and became embarrassed and angry when a supervisor started cracking jokes about his manhood, made visible by the new machine...

{The TSO] was arrested the next day when he arrived for work. He told police he had been made fun of by coworkers on a daily basis.

"[The TSO] stated he could not take the jokes anymore and lost his mind," the report reads.

this posting is very enjoy for me Passengers can also request a pat-down and have all of their items placed in their view prior to the pat-down. It would also be uber-cool if there was some kind of chamber where the state security organs could just gas those of us with subversive ideas. thanks for shearing me.

Now that it has been confirmed that TSOs cannot keep secrets about the images of intimate parts of their colleagues, how can you assure us they will be discrete about the intimate details of celebrities, or kids, or mine??

In other news today, "[a] TSA worker in Miami was arrested for aggravated battery after police say he attacked a colleague who'd made fun of his small genitalia after he walked through one of the new high-tech security scanners during a recent training session."

Jason saidYou should rename this entry "TSA continues to ignore the advice, comments, and suggestions of the people that IT SERVES!"-----------------------------------Just like the Obama Administration and the Dems on health care.

It's amazing that 100 people and thats a rough guess since no one knows how many of the anon are the same person could constitute the majority of the people. This Blog has been around for how long. Yet it's still the same small number with the same complaints. I would in no way consider that the majority.-----------------------------------Ethel totally misinformed saidAnd that is exactly what makes the pat down a sexual assault because it is designed to change your behavior, to make you do something you don't want to do.-----------------------------------No one is making you do anything. When you leave for the airport you know that you will have to go through some type of screening. You've made the choice.-----------------------------------Another Anon saidThe point of terrorism is not to "destroy." It is to terrify. And for eight and a half years now, the dominant federal government response to terrorist threats and attacks has been to magnify their harm by increasing a mood of fear and intimidation. That is the real case against the ludicrous "orange threat level" announcements we hear every three minutes at the airport. It's not just that they're pointless, uninformative, and insulting to our collective intelligence; it's that their larger effect is to make people feel frightened rather than brave.-----------------------------------I don't know what you've been listening to, but these radicals want to kill us and kill as many as possible. They want to kill every person that doesn't believe the way they do. NOT TERRORIZE.

RB saidAs federal agents closed in, Faisal Shahzad was aboard Emirates Flight 202. He reserved a ticket on the way to John F. Kennedy International Airport, paid cash on arrival and walked through security without being stopped.".................So Bob, how's that BDO deal working out for ya?

May 4, 2010 10:22 PM-----------------------------------So RB, just how many employees do you think TSA employees. I've never been to JFK but I know it's a very large CatX airport. TSA doesn't employee enough BDO's to be at every checkpoint, ticket counter, departure gate and public space 24 hours a day. Do you think it might be possible that one person in the middle of thousands might not be seen by a single BDO.The BDO program is just another layer of security. If they get by them, they still have screening to go through at the checkpoint, the possibility of screening at the gates, the possibility of BDO's at the gate area and the no fly list.

I just read several articles about how people who do opt-out of the nudie scanners are given much more stringent frisks and such as alleged "punishment".-----------------------------------

It isn't "punishment" for not going through an AIT. Since the person refused to go through it, there has to be an alternative way for checking the individual as if the person actually went through the AIT.

You want to tell us again that these machines do not show private parts? One of YOUR OWN was SEXUALLY HARASSED by his SUPERVISOR at work because of these nude-o-scopes.

Frankly, if a bunch of yellow-bellied "Americans" are so afraid of the billions of terrorists out there want to subject themselves to these garbage machines, I have no desire to be stuck at FL370 in a sardine can with such paranoid cowards.

Looks like the QM2 is going to make a lot of money off of me when I head transatlantic.

Really? That's the question you're getting a lot lately? I'd think it would be something more along the lines of:

"Why are TSA agents so obsessed with tiny penises that they can't help but make fun of someone for it for OVER A YEAR, driving him to beat the good holy hell out of one of his fellow agents in the parking lot with a baton?"

Who wouldn't love to go through an imaging machine at that particular security checkpoint? Sounds like a sensitive and mature group you've got working there...

"According to GAO, TSA inspectors spend 33% of their time inspecting, 8% on incidents, 5% investigating, 5% on “outreach”, and 49% of their time on “other.” Other?"

RB,

Up until recently, there has not been a system in place that allows TSA/DHS Inspectors to accurately report all of the activities that they perform on a regular basis. The systems that we use are essentially made to report Inspections and Investigations, and do not accurately report our time for training, travel, and investigative work not directly related to an inspection, (which is actually most of the other/unknown category).

..............Ranger, I posted a snippet of a GAO report. If you disagree with their conclusions then your argument is with GAO no me.

Since I have no other metrics to evauluate the report I have to believe GAO did their job fairly.

Anon sez - "Are these images at the same size and resolution as those seen by the operator of the strip-search machines?

Are these images from the current generation of strip-search machines?

If not, why has TSA consistently refused to post sample images at the same size and resolution as those seen by the operators of the strip-search machines?"

I do not know if they are the same size and resolution (or if they are from the current generation or not), but I know that these are the images HQ has published to give an idea of what the machine sees.

One reason I can think of (off the top of my head) that could cause the agency to not post imagery at the same size and reso, is to prevent people with nefarious intent from learning how to circumvent the capabilities of the machine to detect anomolies.

"I do not know if they are the same size and resolution (or if they are from the current generation or not), but I know that these are the images HQ has published to give an idea of what the machine sees."

Find out.

"One reason I can think of (off the top of my head) that could cause the agency to not post imagery at the same size and reso, is to prevent people with nefarious intent from learning how to circumvent the capabilities of the machine to detect anomolies."

That's rather unlikely, given that these strip-search machines have yet to FIND a single person with nefarious intent.

By the way, how many alarms have these strip-search machines generated as a result of detecting harmless, private medical devices that would not alarm a WTMD?

How is TSA tracking the number of alarms these strip-search machines generated as a result of detecting harmless, private medical devices?

How are alarms caused by the detection of harmless, private medical devices resolved?

TSM/West wrote:This Blog has been around for how long. Yet it's still the same small number with the same complaints.

Call it a hunch, but if questions were actually answered, I think that there is a very good chance that the questions wouldn't be repeated. Call it a wild guess, but I think that it is possible that if concerns were addressed, people wouldn't have to express the same concerns more than once.

I guess it's easier to blame the critics than do anything constructive.

Anon sez - "So you say there is some representation of nipples, penis, and labia yet the samples on the link you provided of the man and woman show no nipples on either, no labia, but some representation of a penis.

So since you admit screeners can see nipples and labia why can they not be seen on the samples from the link? That is why i want to know if the sample images provided can be considered accurate when they don't show the details of the body that you state can be seen?"

The best imagery I can give you is from the video posted in the "Whats wrong with this picture" post here on the blog. You can find it here:http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=972_1262283908

I can only tell you what I have seen, and the published info from the agency sites (as I have not worked with these machines and have not been in the booth). I only admitted that there is an accurate representation of the body as it is. I can give no definitive info on the level of clarity or how much of the areas you mention it shows. Based on what I have seen in the video and the images on here, you can see the body pretty much as it is, but not with photographic quality. I am sorry, but I have no other information to give you on the resolution or definition other than the images here and the video.

Anon sez - "We are looking for the exact size and resolution images that the screener sees......not the basic idea of what any old AIT images look like!

If you won't post them because they are too graphic or the nudity is considered SSI then why don't you just say that?"

I understand that, but I only have the information posted here to give you. I also think that the exact imagery could be considered SSI because it can help people with nefarious intent plan on gaming the system (just MHO). I don't think it has to do with nudity, as the images produced are not nudity - it is a rendered image of the body that is not photographic quality (based on the images and video I have seen).

If terrorists already know that hiding a bomb or weapon in a body cavity will circumvent the effectiveness of AIT then how does me not being allowed to see my own image pose a risk if ppl already know the way to get around it?

And if there are other layers in place to protect against someone trying to get something past AIT....then again, how does me seeing my own image cause a problem when the other layers in place would prevent the same threat?"

Hehe, sorry it took so long to get that one to you! I miss things from time to time, so I will apologize for not getting it to you sooner.

I don't think this is just an issue of how people could study the imagery (although I think that is a primary concern), I think it goes to several other issues as well. There is privacy concerns, where there could be a risk of someone seeing someone elses image while trying to see their own. There is an economic reason, if you go to look at your image, it would tie up that machine until you were able to go and look at the image, rendering the line at a standstill until you were to leave. If you were to get a printout of it, there is economic concern there because now you have to supply printers and ink and electricity - there is also a privacy concern in that someone may print off an extra copy and then your picture is out in the world. All said, it is just a can of worms better left unopened.

One reason I can think of (off the top of my head) that could cause the agency to not post imagery at the same size and reso, is to prevent people with nefarious intent from learning how to circumvent the capabilities of the machine to detect anomolies.

West TSA Blog Team

May 7, 2010 11:03 AM

WestTSA Blog Team

May 3, 2010 6:28 PM-----------------------------------

Then answer this question previously posted:

If terrorists already know that hiding a bomb or weapon in a body cavity will circumvent the effectiveness of AIT then how does me not being allowed to see my own image pose a risk if ppl already know the way to get around it?

And if there are other layers in place to protect against someone trying to get something past AIT....then again, how does me seeing my own image cause a problem when the other layers in place would prevent the same threat?

"I am sorry, but I have no other information to give you on the resolution or definition other than the images here and the video."

Yes, you ARE sorry with your lame excuses. Now, do get the information and then come back here and explain why YOU'RE allowed to see images of our children's genitals but WE are not allowed to see what your poorly-trained work force is seeing (and using for who knows what purpose).

If terrorists already know that hiding a bomb or weapon in a body cavity will circumvent the effectiveness of AIT then how does me not being allowed to see my own image pose a risk if ppl already know the way to get around it?

And if there are other layers in place to protect against someone trying to get something past AIT....then again, how does me seeing my own image cause a problem when the other layers in place would prevent the same threat?"

Hehe, sorry it took so long to get that one to you! I miss things from time to time, so I will apologize for not getting it to you sooner.

I don't think this is just an issue of how people could study the imagery (although I think that is a primary concern), I think it goes to several other issues as well. There is privacy concerns, where there could be a risk of someone seeing someone elses image while trying to see their own. There is an economic reason, if you go to look at your image, it would tie up that machine until you were able to go and look at the image, rendering the line at a standstill until you were to leave. If you were to get a printout of it, there is economic concern there because now you have to supply printers and ink and electricity - there is also a privacy concern in that someone may print off an extra copy and then your picture is out in the world. All said, it is just a can of worms better left unopened.

West TSA Blog Team

May 7, 2010 7:14 PM

----------------------------------Just explain to everyone asking to view their image that there is a possibility that their image might be seen by wandering eyes and hang a curtain over the monitor. Then you are no longer liable. After all if the TSO operating the machine sees the image by accident he/she wouldn't make jokes because they are trained professionals.......Right?

Also Just so i understand your logic:

$150,000+ for machines that show anatomically correct images of naked passengers plus the staffing cost is a drop in the bucket, but an extra $100 at most for a printer with ink included and paper that you can get from any office in the airport is going to break the bank??????

Have you had so many requests from passengers to see their images that the TSA would incur such an expense on paper and ink?

If this is true then it tells me that the vast majority of passengers have concerns over the explicitness of these images and since they are suitable for a classroom (as Nico has said in the past) why wouldn't you want to alleviate those concerns? I have seem multiple posters on this blog state they have no interest in seeing their image, so the savings have already started.

there is also a privacy concern in that someone may print off an extra copy and then your picture is out in the world. All said, it is just a can of worms better left unopened.

WestTSA Blog Team

May 7, 2010 7:14 PM.............. West, Blogger Bob, Nico, Gail or any other TSA official, I will volunteer to have be scanned by WBI'er with the stipulation that I see the raw image and if the image is in fact not revealing as claimed by TSA I will allow that image to be posted for public viewing in the same size and resolution as seen by TSA WBI operators.

However, if the image is revealing and not safe for school children as claimed by Nico then TSA will have to publicly admit it has been less than truthful with the public.

"There is privacy concerns, where there could be a risk of someone seeing someone elses image while trying to see their own...there is also a privacy concern in that someone may print off an extra copy and then your picture is out in the world."-------------------------------------Sorry, but your argument doesn't hold water. According to the TSA, our privacy is protected as long as the person in the image cannot be identified by those who are viewing it. Hence your repeated emphasis on facial blurring and the fact that the images are viewed in a remote location. Is it now TSA's position that these scanners do violate our privacy? Or does TSA believe that our privacy is violated when a private citizen sees one of these images but not when one of their highly-trained employees sees it? Care to retract your statement?

You seem like a nice fellow, but you have an annoying habit of speculating about areas in which you lack both knowledge and insight. Most of your posts in this vein follow from your blind faith in the policies of your employer, the completely unfounded conviction that all policies must have some basis in reason.

"All said, it is just a can of worms better left unopened."-----------------------------------What do you think about idea of giving government agents the right to see detailed images of children's genitals? Does that not present a "can of worms."

If terrorists already know that hiding a bomb or weapon in a body cavity will circumvent the effectiveness of AIT then how does me not being allowed to see my own image pose a risk if ppl already know the way to get around it?

And if there are other layers in place to protect against someone trying to get something past AIT....then again, how does me seeing my own image cause a problem when the other layers in place would prevent the same threat?"

I did answer that question, there are privacy concerns, the cost of either printing off images for the passenger, running additional monitors, maintaining the integrity of the system, the fact that the machine only produces one image at a time, this means that everyone in line behind you would have to wait for you to view your image before they could proceed into the machine to be cleared. Add these factors into the security concern that someone could possibly study the imagery in an attempt to learn where to conceal items, and again, it is a can of worms best not opened.

Anon sez - "Yes, you ARE sorry with your lame excuses. Now, do get the information and then come back here and explain why YOU'RE allowed to see images of our children's genitals but WE are not allowed to see what your poorly-trained work force is seeing (and using for who knows what purpose)."

Now come on Anon, telling you that I do not have the information you asked for is not a lame excuse - I was blinded by sunspots when it came to typing in more information on this subject.... THAT was a lame excuse!

I do not have access to any more information than you do, as I do not work with the mahinces, have never seen one from closer than about 10 feet and have never been given anymore information than is posted on this page or TSAs press releases.This makes your statement wrong on 2 accounts, I am not allowed to see anymore than you, and we are not a poorly trained work force. TSA employees train constantly all year round, anytime there is a change in policy, it is distributed to the workforce with new info and training.

The AIT is used to clear anomolies on the person simply to make certain they do not have weapons or other dangerous items on them - it is as simple as that.

Anon sez - "Just explain to everyone asking to view their image that there is a possibility that their image might be seen by wandering eyes and hang a curtain over the monitor. Then you are no longer liable. After all if the TSO operating the machine sees the image by accident he/she wouldn't make jokes because they are trained professionals.......Right?

Also Just so i understand your logic:

$150,000+ for machines that show anatomically correct images of naked passengers plus the staffing cost is a drop in the bucket, but an extra $100 at most for a printer with ink included and paper that you can get from any office in the airport is going to break the bank??????

Have you had so many requests from passengers to see their images that the TSA would incur such an expense on paper and ink?

If this is true then it tells me that the vast majority of passengers have concerns over the explicitness of these images and since they are suitable for a classroom (as Nico has said in the past) why wouldn't you want to alleviate those concerns? I have seem multiple posters on this blog state they have no interest in seeing their image, so the savings have already started."

Even if you offer the "booth" or curtain set up, the cost can be additional monitors, the mods to the machine to accomodate them (which means you would have to hold a bid and issue a contract), then the frames for the booth or the cloth for the curtain (or both) - again, more contracts and bids, then you also have the fact that the lane is inoperable until that image is cleared (remember the one image at a time system it operates with due to privacy concerns) so no passenger can be screened while the person looks at their own image. There is also the floorspace issue, at many airports there is a premium on floorspace, and all sq footage of the airport is accounted for financially some locations would have to move their machines in order to accomodate the viewing area. This is all in addition to the fact that there is a security concern with folks studying the imagery to try and conceal items, and privacy concerns where images may be given to the wrong person. The economic impact is not just $100 for a printer and some ink that can be found at a local store.

"Now come on Anon, telling you that I do not have the information you asked for is not a lame excuse"

Of course it is, since you've done nothing to GET the information that would allow you to say something useful.

"I do not have access to any more information than you do, as I do not work with the mahinces, have never seen one from closer than about 10 feet and have never been given anymore information than is posted on this page or TSAs press releases."

Fine. You work for TSA, get the information and post it here.

"This makes your statement wrong on 2 accounts, I am not allowed to see anymore than you,"

Nonsense. Your agency has employees who go to work and spend their day taking nude pictures of passengers, including minor children, yet claims that allowing people to view their OWN images would somehow compromise the air security TSA does nothing to enhance in the first place.

"and we are not a poorly trained work force." TSA employees train constantly all year round, anytime there is a change in policy, it is distributed to the workforce with new info and training."

Yes, you are. You're a terribly trained and unprofessional workforce. You don't know what your own policies are, you routinely harass and abuse innocent people, and you can't implement your own policies (see, among many others, the ongoing "shoes on the belt" fiasco). "Isolated incidents" seem to be reported several times a month.

You're inept and dangerous.

"The AIT is used to clear anomolies on the person simply to make certain they do not have weapons or other dangerous items on them - it is as simple as that."

No, it's not that simple, as you and we well know. For instance, the strip search machines can ALSO be used to enable a supervisor to sexually harass an employee for a year without any repercussions from TSA as an agency.

The AIT is used to clear anomolies on the person simply to make certain they do not have weapons or other dangerous items on them - it is as simple as that.

WestTSA Blog Team

May 8, 2010 10:55 AM

According to news articles & the police report filed by the TSO arrested for assault it is also used to produce anatomically accurate images of naked people for the entertainment of other TSO's.

With this latest headline, the LAX screener caught with over 1100 child porn vids on his personal laptop, and the sexual deviant from Orlando that asked a 13-year old gorl to be his sex slave (to name a few).....my question is:

Why should I trust any TSO I ever come into contact with, when these are the types of people that TSA hires to view naked images of passengers and children?

Even if you offer the "booth" or curtain set up, the cost can be additional monitors, the mods to the machine to accomodate them (which means you would have to hold a bid and issue a contract), then the frames for the booth or the cloth for the curtain (or both) - again, more contracts and bids, then you also have the fact that the lane is inoperable until that image is cleared (remember the one image at a time system it operates with due to privacy concerns) so no passenger can be screened while the person looks at their own image. There is also the floorspace issue, at many airports there is a premium on floorspace, and all sq footage of the airport is accounted for financially some locations would have to move their machines in order to accomodate the viewing area. This is all in addition to the fact that there is a security concern with folks studying the imagery to try and conceal items, and privacy concerns where images may be given to the wrong person. The economic impact is not just $100 for a printer and some ink that can be found at a local store.

WestTSA Blog Team

May 8, 2010 11:04 AM

What additional monitors? You guys are using BXR and if you follow the link from your own website it clearly shows the secure 1000 already has a monitor mounted on it:

http://www.tsa.gov/approach/tech/imaging_technology.shtm

Unless the picture on your website of the secure 1000 is as inaccurate as the AIT sample images the TSA provides.

A 5 sec peek at my own image is hardly considered a delay when i've read it can sometimes take up to 30 secs to clear harmless anomalies picked up by AIT.

"and privacy concerns where images may be given to the wrong person."---------------------------------------Perhaps you missed my earlier post where I pointed out the logical contradictions of this claim. I'll remind you once more: according to the TSA, our privacy is not violated unless someone can connect our naked image to our identity. If this is the case (and I do not believe that it is, but it has been the argument that TSA has adopted) it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever for you to be claiming that it would be a violation of anyone's privacy if they were to fall into the hands of a private citizen rather than one of your highly trained and extremely mature employees.

I have now pointed out the absurdity of your reasoning twice. Drop the argument or tell me why I'm wrong.

I just don't get why I have to put all my money and my passport into bins if your machine can actually see what they are. They're legal - let me keep them on my person. Money, in particular. You're just asking for a host of secondary crimes and problems (and accusations against your own agents) when things go missing (and they will). Your agents are not saints.

The fact that we can no longer travel with money belts is ridiculous and the change in routine, itself, for many passengers will make them vulnerale - in restrooms and in areas near the checkpoints. You're not screening for common thievery and there's no way to do so.

At any rate, I am looking forward to seeing how the issue of my belongings is handled this year. I don't intend to step through that machine until I can see that my items have cleared your security and I won't put them on the belt until all non-TSO people are away from the belt. Last year, we were pushed through like cattle and it was chaos.

Anonymous said...Bob, when will you publish samples of the images generated by these strip-search machines at the same size and resolution seen by the operators of these strip-search machines?

April 30, 2010 3:48 PM***********************************Anon please see the webster's dictionary definition of the term "strip search"

*********************************** searching someone for concealed weapons or illegal drugs by having them remove their clothes***********************************please note anon, there is NO removal of clothes, only a generic image viewed by an officer in a secluded room who NEVER sees the actual passenger. "The image is deleted forever" what about that do you NOT understand anon? The truth is at my airport, a number of passengers have touted this technology as "more convenient" to them then being "groped" in their words. So what would you rather be anon, "groped" or "strip searched"?

Anonymous said... Why is TSA incapable of honesty when it comes to its desire to take naked pictures of children?

April 30, 2010 3:51 PM

......................

Anon your disgusting......................RB...Everything but actual images in the size and resolution seen by the operators.These images would allow a person to make an educated decision to accept WBI "Strip Serach" Screening or not. Everything but actual images in the size and resolution seen by the operators. What harm is there in being honest with the public?...................RB..if u go to an airport that has a AIT machine, right next to it is a sign and it sayd u can ask for a patdown instead AND it shas pictures of what the operators actually see.. lastly there is no harm in being honest with the public but the big problem is we could post up 500 picturs of family, friends, and strangers and none of you guys would believe those were the images that are being seen and would claim they were doctored and blah blah blah................................. Anonymous said... Bob, how does TSA plan to prevent pedophile and criminals in the ranks from operating these machines?................................

the same way doctors and teachers are hired they get background checks and are screened very closely and carefully upon hiring

You said there were only a handful of complaints, but the linked PDF has 451 pages of complaints and thats only since first of the year. Thats not a handful that's a significant number of complaints and thats only the recorded one.

Makes one wonder how many were before the start of this file, and weather they were round filed or just ignored in typical TSA fashion like so many questions in this blog.

Anonymous said...Going through a machine that exposes you is taking your rights of privacy away because "You might be a terrorist" How far is this going to go? Who's really the terrorist here?

May 10, 2010 4:20 AM***********************************anybody see the guy in NYC recently who tried to blow up an suv in Times Square? Oh but we don't have a need for screening at airports, we don't have a need for anyone being searched, or "strip searched"...oh by the way, when is the last time you were REQUIRED to remove your clothes at the airport? Don't fib now, you know that no TSO has ever required you to remove your clothes to clear you through the checkpoint. How far will it go? A better question is how far has it already gone? People are INTENT on doing harm to our citizens, this was proven two weeks ago by a man who went to Pakistan and learned how (not so well thankfully) to put togheter an improvised explosive device, and that man came back to the US, put it together and attempted to use it in a crowded environment. So don't tell me we don't have a need for security! You complainers are in the minority, because the people I talk to, thousand a day by the way, most of them are grateful for what I and my co-workers do, and most of them want technology that is going to make it easier for them to traverse safely through the checkpoint...oh yeah I forgot to mention, getting through the checkpoint and on to your plane and to your destination safely, that is our goal. We don't want to see NAKED pictures of you, your wife, your grandfather or your kids, nor do we want to see your plane fall out of the sky. You guys need to get a grip on reality, and the reality right now is that people are out to get us, they don't like us, they don't like you, they don't like me....in fact they HATE us and will do anything they can to harm us. So when you look at your child walking through the WBI, stop thinking dirty and start thinking safety. For those of you who choose to claim your constitutional rights, more power to ya, but if something were to happen, you are the same people who would be hollaring and shouting on Capital Hill, "Where was TSA? Where was our security?" I am right here, and when you come through my checkpoint, I have but one goal in mind...make sure that everyone on YOUR plane does not have any prohibited items, weapons or otherwise. That's my job, and I'm going to do it. Have a nice day.

Anon sez - "Sorry, but your argument doesn't hold water. According to the TSA, our privacy is protected as long as the person in the image cannot be identified by those who are viewing it. Hence your repeated emphasis on facial blurring and the fact that the images are viewed in a remote location. Is it now TSA's position that these scanners do violate our privacy? Or does TSA believe that our privacy is violated when a private citizen sees one of these images but not when one of their highly-trained employees sees it? Care to retract your statement?

You seem like a nice fellow, but you have an annoying habit of speculating about areas in which you lack both knowledge and insight. Most of your posts in this vein follow from your blind faith in the policies of your employer, the completely unfounded conviction that all policies must have some basis in reason."

This response is predicated on the idea that noone will be in the area when you view the image. If the image is printed off, all it takes is one person standing near you that notices an item such as a necklace, cast, or other identifying feature. If you have the screening booths, then there is the additional cost added in. There is the fact that the image can be used to search for ways to defeat the system. There would be the fact that holding up the line to view the image would add to the time coming through the checkpoint. The TSOs that operate the AIT undergo training to interpret the imagery, and the associated anomalies - it is a part of their job. They are taught to use the technology to find those anomalies to help prevent WEI from getting on planes. In order to preserve the privacy of all, the only persons seeing the images produced by the AIT, are those that are trained to interpret them. Hence the reason the agency has stringent regulations about cameras and phones and such in the booth, we don't want ANY imagery getting out to the public, TSA simply wants the imagery used to find anomalies during the screening process - nothing more.

I am a nice fellow, just ask me!I can be annoying, just ask my wife to be and my Dad.

I do not have a blind faith in the agency, I have posted information that I accept until there is a change or something brings to my attention that it is wrong. I think that most of the bad "press" we get is actually a few bad apples, and not systemic in the extreme, as many people that post here believe. I have seen 50 times as many good employees as I have bad, and I have worked at some rowdy airports and my home airport - which is steady (at least to me, to a New Yorker it is a dream!). The VAST majority (if not all)of the policies, have an articulable logic and sound reasoning even if they seem to be less than the best option sometimes. I do have a conviction that at a minimum the agency has the safety of the traveling public as the prevailing goal - and that we make some mistakes along the way, but the agency is always striving for that goal. Are you implying that having conviction in your primary mission is a bad thing?

please note anon, there is NO removal of clothes, only a generic image viewed by an officer in a secluded room who NEVER sees the actual passenger. "The image is deleted forever" what about that do you NOT understand anon? The truth is at my airport, a number of passengers have touted this technology as "more convenient" to them then being "groped" in their words. So what would you rather be anon, "groped" or "strip searched"?

May 10, 2010 8:04 AM---------------------------------

How can you state the images are "generic" when the reveal the different size of breasts and genitals? Wouldn't a generic image be unable to distinguish between male and female and show the same size sex organs? Follow the link because you obviously have a different definition of the word generic. This is how it is used when speaking english.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/generic

Also stripsearch;

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/stripsearch

"to search (a suspect who has been required to remove all clothing) esp. for concealed weapons, contraband, or evidence of drug abuse."

This technology uses radio waves or x-ray to remove all clothing from view and just leave the naked body visible! It IS a strip-search it's just done without physical contact. And like a strip-search the naked body is viewed in a private room. But unlike a traditional strip-search which is done by members of the same sex, the TSA's perversion allows either sex to perform the strip-search....regardless of the fact that it goes directly against some religious values.

Given the choice, having an anatomically accurate naked image of myself recorded by a machine required to be able store and transmit images, with the only assurance that it will be deleted coming from the TSA which has absolutely no credibility is far more invasive than being temporarily groped which records no image of me naked.

I understand that some people do prefer the strip-search so it should be an option for those who choose it. Personally, I will take the pat-down every time and stop flying if that option is removed.

TSO Tom - put down the koolaid. Do you live in cave have you not seen the repeated incidents involving TSA employees ranging from petty theft to drug and weapons trafficking. then there is Alvin Crabtree the gun toting DEN TSA employee who willfully and knowingly brought a loaded firearm to work, and was never prosecuted (that alone should mean that no one ever should be charged).

a one in centillion risk does not justify 99.99999999% of TSA theater act.

BTW it was your fellow co-workers that FAILED to notice this guy with the BDOs TSA loves to taut as "Behavior experts", and normal screening. It was CBP that caught the guy not TSA, so you failed again.

Thousands of people a days, what airport/terminal/checkpoint do you work at, and how long have you worked for TSA?

That recent FOIA PDF has plenty of complaints and that looks like a very small sample of the total population of complaints

a one in centillion risk does not justify 99.99999999% of TSA theater act.

Thousands of people a days, what airport/terminal/checkpoint do you work at, and how long have you worked for TSA?***********************************Wow, where did you get your stats from? One in centillion, you must be the one living in a cave my friend. I'm still here doing my job.You know what, telling you where I work and how long I've been with TSA would be a violation of MY privacy rights....and I don't like being cyberly stripped. Have a nice day

This technology uses radio waves or x-ray to remove all clothing from view and just leave the naked body visible!***********************************Wow, x-ray nakedness...that's a new theory haven't heard of that one yet. The images are generic, we can't see your face, we cannot associate the image with you or with anyone else, in fact we never even see you, just the image and an x-ray of someone's breasts or other body parts does nothing for me. It means nothing to us, unless you are concealing a gun or other dangerous object on your person. There's always the alternatives: Full body pat down, or take the bus.

TSO Tom published a long diatribe, which included the following gem: "So don't tell me we don't have a need for security!"

Nobody told you that. Although, if that's what you read, I can certainly understand why you'd post such a "barbed" response.

You also wrote: "anybody see the guy in NYC recently who tried to blow up an suv in Times Square? Oh but we don't have a need for screening at airports, we don't have a need for anyone being searched, or "strip searched"..."

First of all, the guy was in Times Square, and nowhere near an airport. Are you suggesting that airport scanning with AIT will somehow prevent terrorist acts in Times Square and other non-airport locations?

Now, before you fly off the handle again, yes, we should screen passengers at airports. In a sensible manner! The new "AIT" scanners can play a role in that.

But you can't blame people who see these incidents involving TSA personnel from becoming concerned. You also can't blame people who are concerned because TSA seems to constantly have to "revise" what the machines are capable of. First they couldn't print. Then they couldn't print at airports. Then they couldn't print at airports unless in test mode. Similar issues exists about the machines' resolving power and the display capabilities they have.

You can try to whitewash those concerns, but they are legitimate and the fact is that citizens have them. Whether a majority or a minority have these concerns is irrelevant. Citizens not only deserve to be able to raise those issues, they have an absolute fundamental right to do so, without some low-level government employee berating them for doing so on a forum. And to preempt a potential snarky response, yes, you too can express an opinion about this and any other issue. But do it as a citizen without your fancy TSO moniker.

You also wrote: "So when you look at your child walking through the WBI, stop thinking dirty and start thinking safety."

POW! TSO Tom delivers an amazing thought-terminating cliché right on the collective jaw of the posters.

"Are you implying that having conviction in your primary mission is a bad thing?"-----------------------------------------Yes, West, that's right. You've hit the nail right on the head-- I am against conviction in one's primary mission, moms, apple pie, and the troops . But seriously, let's review.

1. Someone proposed that people should be allowed to look at their own images. [Personally, I don't really get the idea or see how it would help anything, but that's not the point.]2. You, a person with no particular knowledge of this situation offered a number of assumptions about why this was not a good idea. One of the arguments you made was that someone's privacy could be violated if the image was disseminated. 3. Your most recent post attempts to clarify the issue but doesn't make a whole lot of sense. You write: "If the image is printed off, all it takes is one person standing near you that notices an item such as a necklace, cast, or other identifying feature."

Umm, wouldn't the fact that you were holding the printout in the first place give it away before people spotted your necklace.

4. In any case, you go on to write: The TSOs that operate the AIT undergo training to interpret the imagery, and the associated anomalies - it is a part of their job. They are taught to use the technology to find those anomalies to help prevent WEI from getting on planes. In order to preserve the privacy of all, the only persons seeing the images produced by the AIT, are those that are trained to interpret them. Hence the reason the agency has stringent regulations about cameras and phones and such in the booth, we don't want ANY imagery getting out to the public, TSA simply wants the imagery used to find anomalies during the screening process - nothing more.

Again, West, we've hit at the crux of the problem. You clearly admit that it is a violation of one's privacy to have such a graphic image viewed by others. But then you try to act as if we somehow shouldn't be bothered if those others happen to be government agents with some sort of training in looking at naked pictures. It may very well be the case that the TSA as a whole is only interested in detecting anomalies, but it won't be the TSA that looks at my penis and my wife's vagina. It will be a TSO. Given what I've observed personally and read here, I'd rather have a random stranger viewing this image than a random TSO-- I used to work in GED test administration and I know what kind of folks you are hiring. [That is, of course, as a general rule. I would imagine the economic crisis has actually bumped up the quality and education level of your workforce]. I don't really care whether or not that person has received what passes for training at the TSA, it's still a blatant violation of my privacy.

Although I feel your numbers are low, even 1 bad apple per 50 employees is still an unacceptable ratio.

Considering I typically pass by 10-12 at each security checkpoint, and frequently another 3 to 4 at the gate, much less those poking through my checked luggage behind the scenes, even your number pretty much guarantees I meet one every few trips.

This technology uses radio waves or x-ray to remove all clothing from view and just leave the naked body visible! *********************************** Wow, x-ray nakedness...that's a new theory haven't heard of that one yet. The images are generic, we can't see your face, we cannot associate the image with you or with anyone else, in fact we never even see you, just the image and an x-ray of someone's breasts or other body parts does nothing for me. It means nothing to us, unless you are concealing a gun or other dangerous object on your person. There's always the alternatives: Full body pat down, or take the bus.

May 10, 2010 6:55 PM-----------------------------------

"Wow, x-ray nakedness...that's a new theory haven't heard of that one yet."

Well the technology is fairly new, so now you've heard of it. Glad I could educate you.

"The images are generic"

By "generic" do you mean able to distinguish between the size and shape of male & female genitalia, which screeners viewing the images can. That goes against the definition of the word "generic". Also how were the TSO's at MIA able to associate the scanned image to the TSO who committed the assault....if the images are generic? A generic image would be incapable of showing anatomically accurate details or body type. Were they able to pick the TSO out simply by looking at a blurred face?

"in fact we never even see you"

So since you can't see me, there must not be a naked image of myself displayed on your monitor. In fact you are seeing me, you just don't know it's me.....or that's what you keep leading us to believe.

"just the image and an x-ray of someone's breasts or other body parts does nothing for me."

Can you speak for all TSO's? Can you speak for the kiddie porn screener from LAX? Can you speak for the accused rapist from Logan? Can you speak for the sexual deviant from Orlando that worked for the TSA for almost 8 years?

"There's always the alternatives: Full body pat down, or take the bus."

I noticed how you left out trains as an alternative to flying. Since the TSA has a presence in some rail hubs are you foreshadowing the TSA's intent to install strip-search scanners at the train stations it works out of?

"anybody see the guy in NYC recently who tried to blow up an suv in Times Square?

Wasn't he the guy on the no-fly list that the TSA allowed to board a plane out of JFK? But at least he didn't get on the plane with a water bottle......he was probably soooooo parched when they arrested him.

Umm i don't live in a cave, but in the real world where i weigh the risks as i go through life. I also dont knee jerk react like a pansy and bury my head in the sand when things happen. I also dont look through rose color glasses, nor to i have blind faith in TSA, or any common courtesy has long since been removed due to numerous abuses ( Golden Rule violations) and ignored complaints and stolen and damaged property filings.

As for my stats they come from years of observation and traveling. My reaction to TSA is a direct result of there treatment to me, which such acts done in the private sector would result in immediate termination with prejudice as well as lawsuits. TSA is so bent on bending over the public as hard as they can, without proper risk assessment, and fighting the last war after the horse has run out of the barn(shoes, liquids, etc).

I have a degree in chemistry and physics and the facts TSA tauts is so far removed from reality its not even funny. There isnt a respected science establishment that has backed TSA claims. Dont even bother using the london "evidence" as that whole situation wasnt done by humans it was done via remote as they claimed it was to unstable. The compound TSA claims is very unstable and requires a full lab to produce and extreme cold temperatures to produce, and not to mention the horrendous smell. It is also so unstable that it would survive a walk to the car, let alone the car trip to anywhere, let alone to the airport and on a airplane.

Then even more I will not step in to the strip scanner due to privacy and health concerns, plus i dont think TSA should have to see a penis/ vagina/ breast/medical implants or devices etc in order to fly

So what your saying is you have no problem violating the rights of passengers who pay your salary via the 9/11 security fee, but yet your own are to be guarded tightly? Are you proclaiming like TSORON that he is more American then anyone else because you work for TSA?

Anonymous said... TSO Tom, I've had a TSO put his hand down the front of my trousers as part of a pat down. Is that SOP? I didn't think so.***********************************Did you go to a supervisor about this TSO "putting his hands down my pants"? Or did you just go on your merry way then log on to the blog to complain about it as an anonymous poster. The problem is not that the TSO put his hands down your pants, which is not by the way in the SOP and you had and still have every right to file a complaint(though I think you should have done it on the spot), the problem is that all too many times, passengers do not report inappropriate behavior by a TSO when it happens. They prefer instead to get on their plane, then when they've had time to swell on it, they log on and complain in a non formal, electronic medium...the TSA blog. If a passenger feels violated by the actions of an employee, that passenger has the right to address that violation when it happens...the longer you wait, the longer that employee is permitted to go on doing what he/she is doing. I don't want to work with someone who does not know what he/she can and cannot do. It makes me look as bad as that employee. I follow procedures, and I trust that MOST of my fellow employees do the same. I say most, because I am painfully aware that many do not, and I want it corrected as much as you do...so anon, the next time a TSO puts his hands down your pants as part of a pat down, I strongly suggest you immediately go to a supervisor or checkpoint manager and report that employee. The supervisors that I know will immediately address the situation.***********************************RB said:But not enough ambition to inspect all cargo loaded on aircraft.

I work on checkpoint, and every single piece of "cargo" that comes through checkpoint is inspected.

Not enough ambition to require millions of dollars of puffers which will detect explosive related chemicals, unlike TSA's Porno Viewers, to work or require the manufacturers to make them work.

I have nothing to do with purchase or maintnance of equipment, take it up with Washington.

Not enough ambition to screen all people who enter the secure areas of airports.

No you don't. You don't screen flight crews and airport employees and TSA baggage handlers the same way you screen passengers. Your "checkpoint" has more holes in it than swiss cheese.***********************************You THINK flight crew don't get screened? Why don't you tell your pilot, or your flight attendant that they don't get screened. Airport employees DO get screened when they come through the checkpoint. The only part of your statement that is correct is regarding TSA baggage employees.

RB, your argument regarding puffers is falling on def ears. First of all, my airport never even saw the puffers, secondly, as I stated to you before, I have nothing to do with purchase or maintnance of equipment, you have to take that up in Washington. Regarding your question of TSA monitoring its own employees, again you have to take it with Washington....and it is the traveling public's responsibility to report something that they believe has violated THEM....the previous poster stated that a TSO had put his hand down his pants during a pat down. That passenger had a right and a responsibility to bring it to the attention of a supervisor or manager WHEN it happened. This does not negate the right to still file a complaint, but it's always better if it is done on the spot. I won't argue with you that TSA needs many improvements, in its personel management, its equipment purchasing and maintnance, and the way it deals with the public. But I will say that as much as we get legitimate complaints, we also get nusiance complaints from people who just don't like the fact that these rules are in place. Everybody complains, but nobody wants to be part of the solution. Noone wants to contribute to something that might help everyone..I thought the ME generation was long done with, but apparently I was wrong.

You THINK flight crew don't get screened? Why don't you tell your pilot, or your flight attendant that they don't get screened. Airport employees DO get screened when they come through the checkpoint. The only part of your statement that is correct is regarding TSA baggage employees.

May 12, 2010 4:24 PM

I agree flight crew do get screened.

That's why they turn the little bowls upside down so TSA knows their special and don't have to remove shoes, get to carry liquids through the checkpoint, and no telling what other special considerations they're given.

TSO Tom, that incident with the TSO putting his hand down the front of my trousers happened during TSA's honeymoon period with the public. I did complain and no one did anything about it. Sort of like today when people have valid complaints and they get ignored. I complained till I was blue in the face and it did no good at all.

Comments from people I talked to:

"That possibly couldn't have been one of my people.""That is impossible.""You must be mistaken.""Are you sure?"

1. Someone proposed that people should be allowed to look at their own images. [Personally, I don't really get the idea or see how it would help anything, but that's not the point.]2. You, a person with no particular knowledge of this situation offered a number of assumptions about why this was not a good idea. One of the arguments you made was that someone's privacy could be violated if the image was disseminated. 3. Your most recent post attempts to clarify the issue but doesn't make a whole lot of sense. You write: "If the image is printed off, all it takes is one person standing near you that notices an item such as a necklace, cast, or other identifying feature."

Umm, wouldn't the fact that you were holding the printout in the first place give it away before people spotted your necklace.

4. In any case, you go on to write: The TSOs that operate the AIT undergo training to interpret the imagery, and the associated anomalies - it is a part of their job. They are taught to use the technology to find those anomalies to help prevent WEI from getting on planes. In order to preserve the privacy of all, the only persons seeing the images produced by the AIT, are those that are trained to interpret them. Hence the reason the agency has stringent regulations about cameras and phones and such in the booth, we don't want ANY imagery getting out to the public, TSA simply wants the imagery used to find anomalies during the screening process - nothing more.

Again, West, we've hit at the crux of the problem. You clearly admit that it is a violation of one's privacy to have such a graphic image viewed by others. But then you try to act as if we somehow shouldn't be bothered if those others happen to be government agents with some sort of training in looking at naked pictures. It may very well be the case that the TSA as a whole is only interested in detecting anomalies, but it won't be the TSA that looks at my penis and my wife's vagina. It will be a TSO. Given what I've observed personally and read here, I'd rather have a random stranger viewing this image than a random TSO-- I used to work in GED test administration and I know what kind of folks you are hiring. [That is, of course, as a general rule. I would imagine the economic crisis has actually bumped up the quality and education level of your workforce]. I don't really care whether or not that person has received what passes for training at the TSA, it's still a blatant violation of my privacy."

What have you got against Apple Pie? Man, I love it, especially with a scoop of ice cream too.....mmmmmm Ice cream.....

1. Correct.2. Correct. (with the disclaimer having been put out that I have not worked with the machines, and based on the information put out by the agency)3. Not necessarily, if someone left their image sitting on a bench unattended, someone else could be looking at it. They then could possibly identify someones image by matching identifying items (such as the aforementioned necklace).

You THINK flight crew don't get screened? Why don't you tell your pilot, or your flight attendant that they don't get screened. Airport employees DO get screened when they come through the checkpoint. The only part of your statement that is correct is regarding TSA baggage employees.

_________________________

Shoes left on.LGA carried through with no problems.

So where is the threat with the rest of us getting the aircrew privileges? You only partially screen them.

1. Someone proposed that people should be allowed to look at their own images. [Personally, I don't really get the idea or see how it would help anything, but that's not the point.]2. You, a person with no particular knowledge of this situation offered a number of assumptions about why this was not a good idea. One of the arguments you made was that someone's privacy could be violated if the image was disseminated. 3. Your most recent post attempts to clarify the issue but doesn't make a whole lot of sense. You write: "If the image is printed off, all it takes is one person standing near you that notices an item such as a necklace, cast, or other identifying feature."

Umm, wouldn't the fact that you were holding the printout in the first place give it away before people spotted your necklace.

4. In any case, you go on to write: The TSOs that operate the AIT undergo training to interpret the imagery, and the associated anomalies - it is a part of their job. They are taught to use the technology to find those anomalies to help prevent WEI from getting on planes. In order to preserve the privacy of all, the only persons seeing the images produced by the AIT, are those that are trained to interpret them. Hence the reason the agency has stringent regulations about cameras and phones and such in the booth, we don't want ANY imagery getting out to the public, TSA simply wants the imagery used to find anomalies during the screening process - nothing more.

Again, West, we've hit at the crux of the problem. You clearly admit that it is a violation of one's privacy to have such a graphic image viewed by others. But then you try to act as if we somehow shouldn't be bothered if those others happen to be government agents with some sort of training in looking at naked pictures. It may very well be the case that the TSA as a whole is only interested in detecting anomalies, but it won't be the TSA that looks at my penis and my wife's vagina. It will be a TSO. Given what I've observed personally and read here, I'd rather have a random stranger viewing this image than a random TSO-- I used to work in GED test administration and I know what kind of folks you are hiring. [That is, of course, as a general rule. I would imagine the economic crisis has actually bumped up the quality and education level of your workforce]. I don't really care whether or not that person has received what passes for training at the TSA, it's still a blatant violation of my privacy."

What have you got against Apple Pie? I love it, especially with a scoop of ice cream on the side.... mmmmmmmm, ice cream......

1. Correct.2. Correct. (with the added disclaimer here numerous times that I have not worked with the machines)3. Not necessarily, if the image is disseminated by print, it can be lost, stolen or misplaced, and someone else can be holding it. 4. Correct.

I have indicated that the images are simply used to clear people of WEI. The only time a violation of privacy can occur is if the images are given out or distributed in a public forum. When a passenger enters the AIT they are allowing the generation of the image for screening purposes. The only way a violation of privacy can occur is when the image is used for anything other than screening.

Although I feel your numbers are low, even 1 bad apple per 50 employees is still an unacceptable ratio.

Considering I typically pass by 10-12 at each security checkpoint, and frequently another 3 to 4 at the gate, much less those poking through my checked luggage behind the scenes, even your number pretty much guarantees I meet one every few trips.

Not something to be proud of."

I was trying to use a phrase from my childhood and it backfired because it seems many of the folks here are statistically challenged. Let me phrase it differently for those that took umbrage with my folksy terminology - I have encountered exactly 2 "bad" TSA employees in my time with TSA. I have worked a stint at LAX for about 30 days, and 2 weeks at PHX, along with 5 years of service here at GSO. I have a lot of communication with TSOs from other airports across the nation, and none of them are "bad" employees. I hope this resolves any communication problems folks here may have taken with my previous statement. I have now clarified by using proper terminology for those of you that took me waaaaaaaayyyyyy too seriously earlier.

Oh yeah, ummmm Anon sez this earlier - "I used to work in GED test administration and I know what kind of folks you are hiring. [That is, of course, as a general rule. I would imagine the economic crisis has actually bumped up the quality and education level of your workforce]."

I appreciate you working with people to get their GED, and attempt to move up the ladder in life, I imagine that it could be a trying job at times.

Judging someone by their educational level is only one step in evaluating someone. Just because a person doesn't have letters behind their name or a degree from high school or a Dr. in front of their name, is not necessarily an indicator on how smart or capable a person is in life. One of the *smartest* people I have ever known never made it past the third grade - and they even failed that. In any job, the ability to do the job well should be the first factor of consideration. Just because there have been TSOs (purportedly, I have not seen confirmation yet) without a high school degree or GED, does not mean they are unable to do the job well, or even better than the other people around them. Just sayin'...

I understand that, but I only have the information posted here to give you. I also think that the exact imagery could be considered SSI because it can help people with nefarious intent plan on gaming the system (just MHO). I don't think it has to do with nudity, as the images produced are not nudity - it is a rendered image of the body that is not photographic quality (based on the images and video I have seen).

WestTSA Blog Team

May 7, 2010 7:07 PM----------------------------------

How is it not classified as nudity when it shows an anatomically accurate representation of what a persons body (breasts, penis, labia)looks like without their clothes on?

Do you consider a painting of a naked person not nude because it is not photographic quality?

I used to work in GED test administration and I know what kind of folks you are hiring. [That is, of course, as a general rule. I would imagine the economic crisis has actually bumped up the quality and education level of your workforce]. I don't really care whether or not that person has received what passes for training at the TSA, it's still a blatant violation of my privacy.-----------------------------------And it takes a rocket scientist to hand out a book and say start now?

Anon, you're way off base. Almost half of the employees that work for me have some type of college background. I have three degrees myself. But a piece of paper doesn't indicate how smart anyone is. Just like West said, I also know people who do to circumstances beyond their control were high school dropouts and are some of the hardest working smartest people I know. But I guess we all can't be smart enough to have a job where we just administer tests.

Anonymous said...TSO Tom, that incident with the TSO putting his hand down the front of my trousers happened during TSA's honeymoon period with the public. I did complain and no one did anything about it. Sort of like today when people have valid complaints and they get ignored. I complained till I was blue in the face and it did no good at all.

Comments from people I talked to:

"That possibly couldn't have been one of my people.""That is impossible.""You must be mistaken.""Are you sure?"

GSOLTSO: "I was trying to use a phrase from my childhood and it backfired because it seems many of the folks here are statistically challenged."

It's a hoot to see you use the term "statistically challenged" before going on to give us some really hilarious anecdotal evidence with your whole "I've encountered 2 bad TSOs" spiel.

I also find it amusing that you then proceed to call others statistically challenged.

What I find pathetic is that people who clearly have no real knowledge of statistics -- or even basic mathematics beyond, say, an introductory college algebra course -- fancy themselves capable of doing statistical analysis.

avxo sez - "It's a hoot to see you use the term "statistically challenged" before going on to give us some really hilarious anecdotal evidence with your whole "I've encountered 2 bad TSOs" spiel.

I also find it amusing that you then proceed to call others statistically challenged.

What I find pathetic is that people who clearly have no real knowledge of statistics -- or even basic mathematics beyond, say, an introductory college algebra course -- fancy themselves capable of doing statistical analysis."

You are correct, I typed way to fast for my brain to keep up on that one, it *should* have read "Since I am statistically challenged". I readily admit that mathematics are not my strong suit - they never have been. This does not take away from the fact that in all my time with TSA, I have known exactly 2 bad employees and both are now gone. If you thought that I was doing statistical analysis, you are really out in left field. I was merely using a colloquial term from my past that was commonly accepted as meaning a negligible amount. Sorry for the confusion.

Anon sez - "How is it not classified as nudity when it shows an anatomically accurate representation of what a persons body (breasts, penis, labia)looks like without their clothes on?

Do you consider a painting of a naked person not nude because it is not photographic quality?

Is Michelangelo's David not nude because it is a statue?

my question is:What does the TSA classify as nudity?"

Well, if TSA takes the literal definition of nudity, it would mean " the state of being without clothing or covering of any kind".That would mean the person themself would have no clothing or covering. The images are not nudity, they are a machine rendered image that helps to show anomalies on the body. It is simply a rendered image (unlike photos or art.... well at least most art anyway), that shows the body outline and helps to see if there are things hidden under the clothing. You can attach any titles you like to it, but it truly is nothing more than that.

"The images are not nudity, they are a machine rendered image that helps to show anomalies on the body."

By generating a naked image of the person being scanned by a poorly trained unprofessional TSA employee hidden in a private booth.

"You can attach any titles you like to it, but it truly is nothing more than that.

And yet, your agency refused to release sample images that are the same size and resolution as those seen by the poorly trained, unprofessional TSA employees operating these machines. Sorry, not gonna take your word for it, given your agency's sorry track record.

West saidWell, if TSA takes the literal definition of nudity, it would mean " the state of being without clothing or covering of any kind".That would mean the person themself would have no clothing or covering. The images are not nudity, they are a machine rendered image that helps to show anomalies on the body. It is simply a rendered image (unlike photos or art.... well at least most art anyway), that shows the body outline and helps to see if there are things hidden under the clothing. You can attach any titles you like to it, but it truly is nothing more than that.

WestTSA Blog Team

May 16, 2010 11:17 AM----------------------------------

If you do not consider them nude images then why does the TSA need privacy safeguards???????

If the images produced are "kindergarten friendly" and "just what you would see at the beach" then why would privacy be an issue?

Anonymous said... West saidWell, if TSA takes the literal definition of nudity, it would mean " the state of being without clothing or covering of any kind".That would mean the person themself would have no clothing or covering. The images are not nudity, they are a machine rendered image that helps to show anomalies on the body. It is simply a rendered image (unlike photos or art.... well at least most art anyway), that shows the body outline and helps to see if there are things hidden under the clothing. You can attach any titles you like to it, but it truly is nothing more than that.

WestTSA Blog Team

May 16, 2010 11:17 AM----------------------------------

If you do not consider them nude images then why does the TSA need privacy safeguards???????

If the images produced are "kindergarten friendly" and "just what you would see at the beach" then why would privacy be an issue?

May 17, 2010 2:07 PM................Face it, if these images are as unrevealing as claimed by TSA they would be jumping hurdles to get images out proving that point.

TSA has done everything possible to mislead the public on capabilities of the WBI machines.

The question is why would TSA mislead the public on something that is "safe enough to children to view"?

I think the answer is obvious.

TSA has not told the truth!

I have offered to be imaged by WBI and report if the images are as claimed by TSA.

How about reporting the percentage of people opting out of naked body scanners? It would be a good indicator of the percentage of passengers the airlines will lose should the strip search become mandatory. Can you see Government Airlines coming soon?

Quote from Anonymous: "How about reporting the percentage of people opting out of naked body scanners? It would be a good indicator of the percentage of passengers the airlines will lose should the strip search become mandatory. Can you see Government Airlines coming soon?"

You'd also have to count how many people were given the option to opt out or even know that they can. Most people I know didn't know that you could opt out of them. And we all know how well TSA publishes that option, and the punishment given for opting out (a VERY "friendly" patdown).

GSOLTSO wrote:I have encountered exactly 2 "bad" TSA employees in my time with TSA. I have worked a stint at LAX for about 30 days, and 2 weeks at PHX, along with 5 years of service here at GSO. I have a lot of communication with TSOs from other airports across the nation, and none of them are "bad" employees.

From your point of view, you have encountered very few bad apples. Now let's look at it another way.

Any TSO who violates my constitutional rights is a bad apple, even if they are obeying orders. I do not accept the Nuremberg defense that the TSA has as a core policy.

GSOLTSO wrote in response to my post: "You are correct, I typed way to fast for my brain to keep up on that one, it *should* have read "Since I am statistically challenged". I readily admit that mathematics are not my strong suit - they never have been. This does not take away from the fact that in all my time with TSA, I have known exactly 2 bad employees and both are now gone. If you thought that I was doing statistical analysis, you are really out in left field. I was merely using a colloquial term from my past that was commonly accepted as meaning a negligible amount. Sorry for the confusion."

Hey, no worries -- this sort of thing happens to everyone (no, this is not a "statistician approved statement"). Besides, I may have jumped the proverbial gun a bit too. Sorry about that.

But I am curious about something though. You say you've known two bad employees and I don't doubt that. I want to understand what you mean when you say "bad" in this context.

Do you define "bad" as "This TSO doesn't do his job right and it's not because he's not trained right" or by some other metric?

Anon sez - "If you do not consider them nude images then why does the TSA need privacy safeguards???????

If the images produced are "kindergarten friendly" and "just what you would see at the beach" then why would privacy be an issue?"

Because not all people have the same sensibilities as I do, or that you do. Some people are more sensistive to the imagery than I am or you are. By keeping the privacy protocols in place based on the Assessment recommendations, it protects any person that could be bothered by them. If you being to print the images off, or allow them to be disseminated, there is a chance that some unintended person could see the image. Keeping the privacy protocols in place for all of the traveling public can help safeguard against that type of situation.

Ayn sez - "From your point of view, you have encountered very few bad apples. Now let's look at it another way.

Any TSO who violates my constitutional rights is a bad apple, even if they are obeying orders. I do not accept the Nuremberg defense that the TSA has as a core policy."

You are using your own interpretation of your Rights. There are 300+ million American citizens in this country - each one of them has their own interpretations of what is and isn't a Right. We mostly have these Rights defined in the public forum by SCOTUS, which is supposed to be the last word on Constitutionality (in most cases, there are ways to change the Constitution, but they are done by the houses of Congress). The regulations we have in place right now have not been defined by SCOTUS or any other branch of the government as unconstitutional at this time. I am quite certain that if the majority of Americans thought that having to be screened to get on a plane (whether it be AIT, WTMD, HHMD, or pat down) it would be changed and the agency would make those changes.

avxo sez - "Hey, no worries -- this sort of thing happens to everyone (no, this is not a "statistician approved statement"). Besides, I may have jumped the proverbial gun a bit too. Sorry about that.

But I am curious about something though. You say you've known two bad employees and I don't doubt that. I want to understand what you mean when you say "bad" in this context.

Do you define "bad" as "This TSO doesn't do his job right and it's not because he's not trained right" or by some other metric?"

I will define bad here based on this context as one that would not conform to the rules of the job (basics, not professional, not polite, not doing the job at all, not ....just terrible with customers). The other was someone that was .... Doing some things that they should not have been doing, and as a result are gone... I am sorry that I can't give you more specific information, but there are enough frivolous lawsuits out there already!

I am not one to identify an employee that makes a mistake as a bad employee (I mean, come on, I have made mistakes before), I reserve that for folks that are fairly well identified as a dirtbag in general, and do specific things that are

1. Illegal (I have no mercy on this one)

2. Unable to get the basics of the job down (can't/won't do the patdowns, bag checks, xray, etc right)

If this happened the way the passenger and media are stating it, then the TSO is a dirtbag and needs to be prosecuted. However, the TSO is entitled to due process before I can reder that judgement permanently!

RB sez - "TSA doesn't want this software they would rather look at naked little kiddies."

Actually, if you had read the post a bit closer, you would see that the software package, currently does not meet TSA detection standards. That is the primary reason that the package is not currently being used in the US AIT systems.

May 19, 2010 11:11 PM***********************************Thank you anon for taking the time to post something useful. I have not looked at the link yet, but I will. And if the technology proved effective, I as a TSO would certainly welcome it. Bob, any comments on the software upgrade mentioned above?

Actually, if you had read the post a bit closer, you would see that the software package, currently does not meet TSA detection standards. That is the primary reason that the package is not currently being used in the US AIT systems.

WestTSA Blog Team

May 21, 2010 5:56 PM

........................TSA could choose to only use STRIP SEARCH MACHINES as secondary for children but has decided to look at naked children.

I think that supports my contention that TSA is more interested in looking at little kids naked.

Actually, if you had read the post a bit closer, you would see that the software package, currently does not meet TSA detection standards. That is the primary reason that the package is not currently being used in the US AIT systems.

WestTSA Blog Team

May 21, 2010 5:56 PM***********************************Is there any word from the Software manufacturer as to if/when the package will meet TSA standards? And we need technology that is accurate, false alarm rates are a concern. Percentage of false negatives Vs. false positives. I would rather have false positives than false negatives; so it's a little extra work for me, and an inconvenience to the passenger, but it certainly beats missing something.

Ayn R Key wrote...From your point of view, you have encountered very few bad apples. Now let's look at it another way.

Any TSO who violates my constitutional rights is a bad apple, even if they are obeying orders. I do not accept the Nuremberg defense that the TSA has as a core policy.

GSOLTSO wrote...You are using your own interpretation of your Rights.

No, I'm using the constitution - you know, that document you keep copies of in the TSA lavatories on little spools.

The regulations we have in place right now have not been defined by SCOTUS or any other branch of the government as unconstitutional at this time.

Pay attention please. I wrote that I do not accept the Nuremberg defense. You just gave me the Nuremberg defense. "The rules say what I'm doing is right, therefore it is." At Nuremberg the judge ruled that some actions are wrong without regard to what the rules say, without regard to what orders are given, that any person should know that certain actions are just plain wrong. You have failed that very simple test. You have used the Nuremberg defense to say that what you do is right.

I am quite certain that if the majority of Americans thought that having to be screened to get on a plane (whether it be AIT, WTMD, HHMD, or pat down) it would be changed and the agency would make those changes.

You probably left out a few words, to make it that if a majority of Americans thought screening was wrong then it would be changed.

And you couldn't be more wrong.

There have been so many examples in recent years of actions taken by the government that the majority opposed that I am ashamed on your behalf that you made that argument. Moreover the TSA has gone out of its way to ensure that it is not held accountable by congress.

And if you actually bother to look, what screenings am I opposing? You seem to indicate that I oppose any and every method of screening in your comment, which means you are lying about me. I suppose you need to because otherwise you would not be able to make your counter-argument. I object to non-sensical rules that accompany most screenings, I seriously object to WBI/AIT/insert new name here/child porn machines, and I resolutely and without reservation object to WBI/AIT when it uses BXR instead of MMW.

My list of objections is prioritized, while your strawman version appears to not be. My biggest, chief, and foremost complaint is that BXR is used when MMW is available. My second is that AIT/WBI is entirely the wrong way to screen. My third is the silly and non-sensical rules that accompany regular screening.

Do you understand that now? It is a prioritized list, and it doesn't cover every method and instance of screening. Some screening is not on that list. Other screening is on that list. Some screening is good. Other screening is bad. And some is very bad.

Anon sez - "If you do not consider them nude images then why does the TSA need privacy safeguards???????

If the images produced are "kindergarten friendly" and "just what you would see at the beach" then why would privacy be an issue?"

Because not all people have the same sensibilities as I do, or that you do. Some people are more sensistive to the imagery than I am or you are. By keeping the privacy protocols in place based on the Assessment recommendations, it protects any person that could be bothered by them. If you being to print the images off, or allow them to be disseminated, there is a chance that some unintended person could see the image. Keeping the privacy protocols in place for all of the traveling public can help safeguard against that type of situation.-----------------------------------

But there is real time communication between the TSO operating the scanner and the TSO viewing the image to clear any anomalies that might be present. So as a previous post asked:

Does the TSA monitor the 2-way communication between the scanner operator and the image viewer to ensure that they are not discussing anatomical details of the passenger being screened unrelated to security? ie: The size of a male passenger penis as was the case with the Orlando TSO.

Rb sez - "TSA could choose to only use STRIP SEARCH MACHINES as secondary for children but has decided to look at naked children.

I think that supports my contention that TSA is more interested in looking at little kids naked."

TSA continues to work with the manufacturers to develop the software to where it will meet the detection standards set forth by the agency. I currently have no time frame to give you (or to TSOTom in his post) on when a remedy or improvement is expected. I have no further info on the development of this software, other than HQ says they are currently working with the manufacturers to move forward on the development.

Ayn sez - "No, I'm using the constitution - you know, that document you keep copies of in the TSA lavatories on little spools."

Yeah, I know the Constitution fairly well. I also disagree with you on some of your stated opinions as to what the Constitution guarantees you. This is what I meant by your interpretation. We are different people, that glean different meaning from the same set of printed words. It is quite all right we can disagree on things, I disagree with many people on many things - we all have our opinions.

Ayn sez - "Pay attention please. I wrote that I do not accept the Nuremberg defense. You just gave me the Nuremberg defense. "The rules say what I'm doing is right, therefore it is." At Nuremberg the judge ruled that some actions are wrong without regard to what the rules say, without regard to what orders are given, that any person should know that certain actions are just plain wrong. You have failed that very simple test. You have used the Nuremberg defense to say that what you do is right."

This is a totally different situation. I interpret the fact that you willing submit to the screening as a modifying factor. Prior to buying the ticket to fly, you KNOW that you and your items have to be screened prior to boarding. How is applying the screening protocols to passengers coming through the same as gassing people on orders? Make that logical connection for me, outline it for me in specific steps, because I don't see it. For reasons of National Security, the Feds have placed screening protocols into effect. Airplanes traverse large tracts of private, federal, and state owned lands - cars, trains and buses do the same, but do not have the ability to generate (in most cases) the same amount of destruction as even an RJ. There are some protocols that I disagree with, as there are some that you disagree with. Again, it goes back to interpretation of the same set of words and how it differs from person to person.

Ayn sez - "And if you actually bother to look, what screenings am I opposing? You seem to indicate that I oppose any and every method of screening in your comment, which means you are lying about me. I suppose you need to because otherwise you would not be able to make your counter-argument. I object to non-sensical rules that accompany most screenings, I seriously object to WBI/AIT/insert new name here/child porn machines, and I resolutely and without reservation object to WBI/AIT when it uses BXR instead of MMW.

My list of objections is prioritized, while your strawman version appears to not be. My biggest, chief, and foremost complaint is that BXR is used when MMW is available. My second is that AIT/WBI is entirely the wrong way to screen. My third is the silly and non-sensical rules that accompany regular screening."

I never indicated any such thing, I never lied about you, I merely made a blanket statement. I will not ever speak for you, you seem to be quite able to do that yourself - as I can speak for myself. I understand what I see you object to mostly on this site -

1. Why XRB instead of MMW? - to that I have no response, no information and have so indicated it to you in the past.

2. Why AIT in the first place? - It gives the agency the ability to detect many things that would not alarm a WTMD, and in many cases eliminates the need to pat down passengers (which has been a long running consistent complaint from passengers).

3. Non sensical rules and screening protocols (paraphrased) - I agree 100%, but sometimes there is a perfectly good explanation for some o fthe seemingly nonsensical rules - that info just falls under SSI regulations.

I will agree with you that the screening should be the same set of rules for LAX that are in play here at GSO. The basics should be the same everywhere - what you can/can't bring, the actions when an item that can't go is found, and the expectations of the passengers/TSOs. I have always disagreed with that particular aspect of the security protocols - I don't think the unpredictability factor adds enough additional security to counter the added public relations problems it generates - but I am just a frontline kind of guy, and am not privy to all of the reasons behind the protocols in every case.

Anon ez - "But there is real time communication between the TSO operating the scanner and the TSO viewing the image to clear any anomalies that might be present. So as a previous post asked:

Does the TSA monitor the 2-way communication between the scanner operator and the image viewer to ensure that they are not discussing anatomical details of the passenger being screened unrelated to security? ie: The size of a male passenger penis as was the case with the Orlando TSO.

If my question falls under the SSI designation please say so."

The two-way radios are monitored by the the checkpoint management (whether that is LTSO/STSO/TSM, I am not certain), at least that is what I have been told while at the airports I have seen them at, and based on what info has been published. The communication between the two is limited to clearing anomalies and giving directions (again, based on what I have heard and read).

Anon sez - "Why does the TSO West guy keep commenting on the scanners when he admits that he knows NOTHING other than the tripe already given to us through the official webpage?"

Because I have spoken to TSOs that work with them, and I wish to communicate with the masses on current affairs. I have also read most of the published information about the machines (both by TSA and the manufacturers - as well as some press releases). I am a member of the Blog Team, and as such I attempt to communicate with the folks that visit our site here. Did you have any other questions you would like me to address for you as well?

GSOLTSO said... Anon sez - "Why does the TSO West guy keep commenting on the scanners when he admits that he knows NOTHING other than the tripe already given to us through the official webpage?"

Because I have spoken to TSOs that work with them, and I wish to communicate with the masses on current affairs. I have also read most of the published information about the machines (both by TSA and the manufacturers - as well as some press releases). I am a member of the Blog Team, and as such I attempt to communicate with the folks that visit our site here. Did you have any other questions you would like me to address for you as well?

WestTSA Blog Team.....................Yes, I have a question. When will TSA publish AIT images, both MMW and Backscatter, in the same size and resolution as seen by machine operators?

If these images are as tame as claim by Nico, a past TSA Blog member, surely there should be no reason to not post these images.

If TSA will not post these images how about a reason why it is felt that the images cannot be posted.

RB sez - "Yes, I have a question. When will TSA publish AIT images, both MMW and Backscatter, in the same size and resolution as seen by machine operators?

If these images are as tame as claim by Nico, a past TSA Blog member, surely there should be no reason to not post these images.

If TSA will not post these images how about a reason why it is felt that the images cannot be posted."

I have no information from HQ other than the info I have posted previously, and posted on the official pages, and in the press releases. however, I can opine that the images are not being released due to some concern about folks with nefarious intent using them to determine ways to circumvent the process. I have no better answer for you.

GSOLTSO said... RB sez - "Yes, I have a question. When will TSA publish AIT images, both MMW and Backscatter, in the same size and resolution as seen by machine operators?

If these images are as tame as claim by Nico, a past TSA Blog member, surely there should be no reason to not post these images.

If TSA will not post these images how about a reason why it is felt that the images cannot be posted."

I have no information from HQ other than the info I have posted previously, and posted on the official pages, and in the press releases. however, I can opine that the images are not being released due to some concern about folks with nefarious intent using them to determine ways to circumvent the process. I have no better answer for you.

WestTSA Blog Team...........You know, if TSA posted these images with no detectable items in the images then how could anyone use this to there advantage?

TSA refuses to publish these images for one simple reason, they are pornographic.

How long before TSA adds "Enjoys Pedophilia" to the TSA screener job description?

Bye the way, my offer to be screened and report back on the images I saw is still on the table.

Anon ez - "But there is real time communication between the TSO operating the scanner and the TSO viewing the image to clear any anomalies that might be present. So as a previous post asked:

Does the TSA monitor the 2-way communication between the scanner operator and the image viewer to ensure that they are not discussing anatomical details of the passenger being screened unrelated to security? ie: The size of a male passenger penis as was the case with the Orlando TSO.

If my question falls under the SSI designation please say so."

The two-way radios are monitored by the the checkpoint management (whether that is LTSO/STSO/TSM, I am not certain), at least that is what I have been told while at the airports I have seen them at, and based on what info has been published. The communication between the two is limited to clearing anomalies and giving directions (again, based on what I have heard and read).

West TSA Blog Team

May 27, 2010 4:41 PM-----------------------------------

IF the TSO monitoring the communication from the scanners hears the viewer discussing details of a passengers sex organs is he/she required to report the TSOs involved for breach of privacy?

I recently was pushed through my first full body scan in Denver. I was not told what was going on simply ordered to stand here and hold up my arms. At first I thought it was one of the explosive sniffers I’ve been through before, but as they also pushed my 11 year old son…(So how does a child opt out? What about all the laws about taking indecent pictures of children) through after me I realized what it was. I was very angry that these images and x-ray / microwave exposures were made with no consultation or options. I believe this is an illegal search and exposure to microwave or radiation should be on an informed consent basis

Anon sez - "IF the TSO monitoring the communication from the scanners hears the viewer discussing details of a passengers sex organs is he/she required to report the TSOs involved for breach of privacy?"

I have no official information on what steps are supposed to be followed if the described type of comment is made. I have been *told* by someone at one of the airports that making a comment like that is the easiest way to find yhourself turning in your badge and looking for another job - but I do not have that from HQ or the SOP. I have not seen any specific reactions/regulations posted in the sites or press releases yet, so I can't give you a better answer than that. =(

Anon sez - "IF the TSO monitoring the communication from the scanners hears the viewer discussing details of a passengers sex organs is he/she required to report the TSOs involved for breach of privacy?"

I have no official information on what steps are supposed to be followed if the described type of comment is made. I have been *told* by someone at one of the airports that making a comment like that is the easiest way to find yhourself turning in your badge and looking for another job - but I do not have that from HQ or the SOP. I have not seen any specific reactions/regulations posted in the sites or press releases yet, so I can't give you a better answer than that. =(

June 3, 2010 1:50 PM------------------------------

Please send the question up the chain asking for an official response.